A quarter of a share cannot be insignificant — this is what the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation ruled

CrimeaPRESS reports:

A significant number of households in Russia are in shared ownership. In some cases, joint ownership of property seems impossible due to hostile and conflictual relations between the owners.

Property division lawyers from the SACP of St. Petersburg note that the current legislation practically does not take into account the interpersonal factor when considering disputes arising from this. Many issues related to shared ownership are not defined at all. So, for example, although it contains the term “insignificant share”, it does not define the corresponding limit.

In many ways, lawyers and courts are guided by existing precedents when making decisions. One of them is reflected in the Ruling of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation N 41-KG23-14-K4.

The crux of the matter

This case was initially considered in one of the courts of general jurisdiction of the Rostov region. It was found that citizens who were in a marital relationship acquired ½ share of private home ownership. Accordingly, each of them owned ¼ share in the ownership of it.

The marriage was subsequently dissolved. Due to hostile interpersonal relationships, the former spouses were unable to live in it together. Due to this, the wife moved out of the house. It became impossible for her to use her property.

To restore her rights, the estranged spouse offered to buy her part of the house. However, the second owner refused.

In an attempt to force the transaction, the ex-wife, who had moved out of her home, assessed the market value of her part and went to court. Based on the results of the examination, the price for a ¼ share was about 700 thousand rubles.

After considering the case, the court of first instance rejected the plaintiff due to the defendant’s lack of interest in completing the transaction. In addition, the fact of poor interpersonal relationships, according to the court, does not affect the possibility of living together under one roof.

The appellate court did not agree with the position of the first instance. The judge considered that the ex-wife’s share was insignificant, so the second owner was obliged to buy it out.

The same opinion was held at cassation.

What is a minor share?

Here we should dwell on what consequences may arise if the share is recognized as insignificant. Thus, in accordance with Article 252 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, by definition, the owner is not interested in owning it. In addition, the criterion for such a share is the impossibility of its allocation without damage to third parties. Accordingly, the court has the right to decide on its alienation in favor of other owners with payment of compensation in favor of the owner.

As a rule, a similar situation arises when several persons are co-owners of a property. For example, this may be the case of a joint purchase of an apartment by spouses or inherited property that is divided between several heirs.

Persons who have a minor share in a residential property have the rights and obligations provided by law for all co-owners. Taken together, this includes the right to use common property, participation in decision-making on housing management (for example, repairs or rental) and responsibility for arising obligations.

Moreover, in the event of a division of the apartment or its sale, a small part may affect the size of the shares of each owner.

In general, the position of the Rostov courts is untenable. This is due to the fact that ¼ share cannot be insignificant, based on already established practice. In addition, for the application of Art. 252 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation there is no justification in principle. Without the consent of the owner of a small share, the judge has the right to make a decision on alienation, but the other owner cannot be forced to buy it out without his will.

In addition, previous authorities did not take into account the financial situation of the ex-spouse. He actually could not complete the relevant transaction due to his lack of funds in the required amount.

Thus, the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation not only defended the rights of the owner, but also made specifications regarding the definition of criteria for the insignificance of shares, which will be applied in the framework of law enforcement in the future.

Crimea news | CrimeaPRESS: latest news and main events